Theologizing

Have I mentioned that I’m seeking to enroll in a doctoral program?!?

It’s true. I’m applying right now for the Doctor of Missiology program at Fuller Theological Seminary. The DMiss is a four-year missiology degree. It’s designed for in-service leaders; as such it’s primarily online with yearly residencies in Pasadena. The big idea is to tackle a missological problem, with an eye toward practical and concrete solutions.

Sounds like a hoot, huh? More about this later on, but if you’re interested you can check the program out here.

Turns out that part of the application process is reading three missiology texts (this one, this one and this one), and then writing a 10 page paper that summarizes, compares and evaluates. It’s quite a project.

The other day I was reading one of the texts, and I came across this passage, about gender, equality and God’s nature:

“Human beings are sexually differentiated. It is significant that the only specific explanation of the image of God is that it exists as ‘male and female’ (Gen. 1:27). ‘The primeval form of humanity is the fellowship of man and woman’ (Jewett 1975:36)

In other words, the dynamic interaction and fellowship between men and women is a fundamental reflection of the divine image. We cannot conclude that the woman was inferior, either by nature or by function. That she was created to be man’s ‘helper’ (Gen 2:20) does not mean that she must be ‘subject’ to him. The word helper is used elsewhere of God as Israel’s ‘help and shield’ in time of trouble (e.g., 1 Sam 7:12 and Ps. 33:20). ‘It describes a relationship of mutual interdependence, rather than the woman existing for the male’s convenience, or as his underling’ (Kuhns, 1978:17).

God’s ideal is that human beings enjoy positive social interaction and ongoing cooperation with one another in spontaneous obedience to the will of God. Only thereby can they truly incorporate the image of God.” (emphasis mine)